[arch-dev-public] Web based signoffs

[Allan McRae]

Eric Bélanger wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Dusty Phillips wrote:
>
>> 2008/12/9 Pierre Schmitz <pierre at archlinux.de>:
>>> Am Dienstag 09 Dezember 2008 19:36:14 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
>>>> On this note:
>>>> Dusty added web-based signoffs to our dev site a while back
>>>> https://dev.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
>>>>
>>>> Could we please take a look at this to determine if we need anything
>>>> else to begin using this? If you guys want, I'm sure I could even
>>>> automate something to move signed off packages to the real repo
>>>> automatically...
>>>
>>> I don't think its very usable atm. Some points to improve this:
>>>
>>> * Only show up core packages (atm every package in testing is shown)
>>
>> I can do this and try to add an additional interface where people can
>> request a specific package from extra also be signed off when
>> required.
>
> There a feature request to make the signoff list sortable by repo 
> (FS#11325). Once that's implemented (if it's implementable), you sort 
> by repo and you get the all core signoff at top of list.
>
>>
>>> * Send a message to the ml once a new package is added to testing 
>>> (or updated)
>
> This should be done manually by the dev who puts the package in 
> testing. This way he can list what changes were done to the package. 
> This will prevent unwanted changes to go unnoticed.
>
>>> * Send a message to the ml once a package has enough sign-offs
>
> I don't think it's necessary. The person who started the signoff can 
> check the dashboard after a couple of days. And do that on a daily 
> basis afterwards.
>
>>
>> This is silly. What's the point of web based signoffs if you're going
>> to fill your inbox anyway? I can add a summary to the dashboard if you
>> aren't accustomed to actually looking at the signoff page. If you
>> don't look at the dashboard then... well my work here is done.
>>
>>> * don't move automaticaly; there might be good reasons to keep 
>>> packages longer
>>
>> Maybe a one click move action in the signoffs page?
>
> That's unecessary. As Pierre pointed out in another email, using 
> testing2core is easy enough.
>
> One problem with the current signoff system is that there are packages 
> which are harder to get signoffs for because they need special 
> hardware (e.g. wireless drivers) or setup (e.g. raid, lvm) to test 
> efficiently.  I was thinking about having a list in the wiki of those 
> low-usage packages along with the name of the devs who can potentially 
> signoff these packages for a given arch.  This way we'll know what to 
> expect in terms of dev signoffs and won't have packages stuck in 
> testing for weeks waiting for signoffs that will never come because no 
> dev uses them. We could treat these packages as special cases. We 
> could automatically send the signoff email to the arch-general ML for 
> user signoff. We could also set a rule that after X days in testing 
> and no bug reports, the package is cleared to be moved to core.
>
> I am willing to setup the list if you think it's a good idea. Such a 
> list might even create more interest in the signoffs as it will remove 
> the "another dev will signoff, why bother?" way of thinking.
>

I think that is a good idea.  I started making a list of hardware 
related packages in [core] to do this once but never got around to doing 
anything with it....

Allan